A weblog for anyone interested in adult education and the Workers' Educational Association.
Written by Peter Templeton, WEA Director of Membership, Volunteering & Marketing

Government and adult education

01/24/2012

At last week's LSIS Strategy Day the Council and Board heard from Sue Pember (BIS), Geoff Russell (soon to retired CEO of Skills Funding Agency) and Lorna Fitzjohn (Ofsted). There was a lot their short presentation had in common and I'd sum it up as 'Freedom with results - with speedy intervention if no results'. The FE sector is being given more freedom but interventions around concerns will quickly lead to notice of withdrawal of funding.

The meeting came shortly after the renewed 'satisfactory is not satisfactory' debate as Michael Wilshaw proposes 'Improvement Required' as its replacement. Lorna Fitzjohn drew out some points from the 2011 Chief Inspector's report. In particular the number of serially 'satisfactory' providers. The new expression may be intended to get governing bodies to act. She reported that 'satisfactory providers' often have very poor action planning, ill-informed governance, principals who don't know enough about learners. Again she urged self critical self assessment designed for the provider, showing they know their own work and are taking improvement actions.

There were no inspections in the year reported where teaching and learning was outstanding and this was critical to why so few providers were outstanding overall. Sue Pember had also commented on governance saying: "The new role of governance is crucial. We need governors who can really govern and manage performance of institutions."

Effectively, between them, the emphasis could be summed up as Teaching, Learning & Assessment (TL&A) combined with Leadership, Management & Governance (LM&G) - all within the 'new freedoms'.

It's a big turn around from the last 10-15 years of complaince and centralised planning. They seemed to be asking whether providers were ready. Lorna said that in 'satisfactory' providers, when compared to School Heads, FE leaders are 'managerial pre-occupied - not thinking enough about teaching and learners'.

12/23/2011

FE Providers around the country got an early Christmas present today as their results from 'learner views survey' of the Framework for Excellence (FFE) were put into the provider gateway for them to check before publication. Once out, learners will again be able to compare 'data' before chosing where to study. I'm not absolutely certain that learners across the country will have been holding their breath for the outcome of this year's survey and we'll all have to hold it a bit longer for the outcome of the massive telephone survey of learner destinations

Many providers will have been expecting this to be the last round of the dismal, costly and meaningless FFE with the publication of 'New Challenges, New Chances'. However, it seems like BIS (which the communication renames the department of 'Business, Innivation and Skills') intends to respond to years of criticism of the Framework for Excellence by renaming it the 'FE Public Information framework' so it perhaps it will live on in a zombie format.

Still, in these hard times, maybe its a good thing that social research consultancies continue to get Government business through make-work schemes like these. A new equivalent to the Keynesian approach of digging holes and filling them back in to keep the economy going?

On the other hand, perhaps it was all just an A level stats project that got a bit out of hand.

BIS funding will continue to support a universal a community learning offer, with a wide range of learning opportunities available to all adults in England.

The consultation endorsed a new, clearer commitment to using the public funding subsidy to support access, and progression in its widest sense, for people who are disadvantaged and who are furthest from learning and therefore least likely to participate. In the 2012/13 academic year we will pilot different locally-based ‘community learning trust’ models to channel Adult Safeguarded Learning funding and lead the planning of local provision in cities, towns and rural settings. If this proves to be an effective model we will roll out community learning trusts across England to begin full operation from summer 2013. The new trusts will take account of the views of local government, local communities and local business leaders to ensure the purpose and objectives for the budget are implemented in ways that meet local need. A prospectus will be launched in the spring 2012.

PAGE 14:

Purpose of Government Supported Community Learning:

· Maximise access to community learning for adults, bringing new opportunities and improving lives, whatever people’s circumstances.· Promote social renewal by bringing local communities together to experience the joy of learning and the pride that comes with achievement.· Maximise the impact of community learning on the social and economic well-being of individuals, families and communities.

Objectives

- Focus public funding on people who are disadvantaged and least likely to participate, including in rural areas and people on low incomes with low skills

- Collect fee income from people who can afford to pay and use where possible to extend provision to those who cannot.

- Develop stronger communities, with more self-sufficient, connected and pro-active citizens, leading to:

- increased volunteering, civic engagement and social integration

- reduced costs on welfare, health and anti-social behaviour

- increased online learning and self organised learning

- the lives of our most troubled families being turned around

- Commission, deliver and support learning in ways that contribute directly to these objectives, including:

- bringing together people from backgrounds, cultures and income groups, including people who can/cannot afford to pay - using effective local partnerships to bring together key providers and relevant local agencies and services - devolving planning and accountability to neighbourhood/parish level, with local people involved in decisions about the learning offer - involving volunteers and Voluntary and Community Sector groups, shifting long term, ‘blocked’ classes into learning clubs, growing self-organised learning groups, and encouraging employers to support informal learning in the workplace- supporting the wide use of online information and learning resources- minimising overheads, bureaucracy & administration

10/21/2011

Finally managed to put in comments on BIS FE consultation - New Challenges and New Chances. This is what I said:

Adults considering studying in FE need reliable information before considering entering debt to support their study. This is a potential drag on skills acquisition in the economy.

Whilst repayment of loans is dependent on salary, what evidence is there that median salaries for adults with FE Level 3 qualifications significantly exceed £21,000 pa? Public investment (in providing loans) may never be recovered whilst debt-averse adults decide not to improve their skills because they fear the debt.

Adults in FE are already co-funding to 50% on much of Adult Learning provision leading to qualifications. They also pay dramatically escalating fees to awarding organisations (often in the private sector).

It is reasonable to make loans available to adults studying in FE. However, the HE model with its assumptions around age, length of career, lifetime salaries and attitudes to debt is unlikely to succeed in FE.

It is quite possible that the introduction of loans will significantly reduce take up of qualifications leading to skills just at the point in the economic cycle when they are most needed.

The introduction of FE loans on this model to adults over 24 for Access to HE courses will create barriers to debt averse working class adults considering Higher Education. This may lead them to abandon an HE ambition or to enrol inappropriately early to an HE course without taking a valuable access route.

There will be adults from communities where paying interest on loans is culturally prohibited as usury.

Although the consultation doesn't close until 31st October, we're aware that the earlier ideas and comments are made, the more time officials at BIS (the Department of Business Innovation & Skills) will have to consider them as they prepare proposals.

The government also would like to know the views of learners, tutors and the general public on adult learning through a short online survey. The WEA is encouraging everyone to express their views by completing the short NIACE online survey by 31 October 2011. The survey is aimed at current learners as well as people who are not currently learning. You can access the survey by clicking on the link below

"The report proposes that the sector faces a choice between ‘sleepwalking into a dangerous future’ or grasping the potential of a ‘social productivity alternative’. The report describes these two futures as:

One in which financial pressures encourage a culture of retrenchment, where market mechanisms and current relationships with citizens prevail and where the sector becomes a marginalised service pushed and pulled by more powerful local players;

Another more collaborative, networked, and socially productive future based on the concept of social productivity where colleges and providers are incubators of social value and hubs for service integration; where further education serves the needs of learners through being a creative partner in local growth and service reform agendas.

The concept of ‘social productivity’ was introduced by the 2020 Public Services Commission which argued that whilst the Beveridge model has served Britain well, 60 years on it is time for a fundamental reassessment of public services. It called for a shift from ‘public services as a deliverer of social security, to a new culture of social productivity’ that ‘puts engagement, co-production and civic responsibility at the heart of public services. … This means focusing … on how the confluence of citizen agency, civil society and the state can collaboratively create the right conditions to improve social and economic outcomes.’

The report elaborates 5 directions of development implied by this approach which it illustrates as follows:

As well as setting out these long-term directions, the report identifies short-term actions that should be explored:

Sizing up the barriers to social productivity: to step up to this new role and to incubate social value and network local growth, tangible changes in provision, regulation and accountability are implied. We need to develop strategies for bringing about these changes in order to create a realistic operating framework.

Accounting for social value: Creating an applied methodology to determine and measure social value would unlock the potential of new accountability structures and governance frameworks. This could build on nascent work to measure social value, community wellness and well-being to create tangible, workable methodologies.

Modelling social productivity in practice: To understand the reality of social productivity in this sector, we need to explore practicalities – for example how social network analysis, co-creation and more collaborative relationship between colleges, citizens, businesses and other public services would influence service design and transform services.

We hope the report will stimulate discussion and empower the sector to determine the future it desires. If there is appetite for the future outlined in this report, or elements of it, LSIS will support the sector to develop a route map and strategy to achieve it.

In LSIS we therefore look forward to engaging in discussions, receiving comments and feedback on this report and understanding what it means for both those leading organisations in the sector and for LSIS itself in supporting your continuing development."

03/14/2011

I was asked to respond to a presentation by Alan Tuckett at an event at the Institute for Education today in London. There were several presentations as part of the launch of the NIACE book 'Remaking Adult Learning'. I attach a .pdf of my presentation here: (Download Remaking Adult Learning).

My main point was to look at how the 'Skills Agenda' as a central element of government attachment to globalisation inhibits the possibility of social movement engagement with formal adult learning. This is partly because the sector became defensive; partly because it became incorporated and particularly because the ideology and practice of 'skills' is so pervasive. I noted that the current Data Service statistical release shows that, in just four years, we have lost 470,000 adult learners in FE in exchange for a measly 3.5% improvement in success rates.

I can't see how we can expect social movements to engage with adult learning organisations until we turn our attention away from the State's demands and focus on communities and students. At the same time, we need to persuade the government that this work should receive funding.

03/06/2011

Just reading the Exec Summary and recommendations of the Wolf Report led me to wonder if there are implications for adult education.

As has been said, her report proposes:

a radical simplification of the FE funding mechanism funding students not qualifications

Much greater freedom for institutions to decide what they teach and a reduced role for government and quangos

Greater emphasis on a core vocational curriculum with Maths and English as central

Confirmation of a high quality vocational education route from 16 alongside apprenticeships and A levels

It's pretty scathing on a number of fronts - particularly about the use of qualifications as a proxy for skills. Professor Wolf has been a long time critic of the vocational strategy since the Leitch Report and the ill-fated 'demand-led' approach of the last few years characterised by Train to Gain. This report argues that the current system has failed thousands of young people. Does that have anything to do with adult education?

It certainly questions the notion that qualifications, in themselves, are the answer to anything. Moreover, it recommends funding for 16-18 year olds to be on a programme basis rather than by qualification or learning aim code. It withdraws any obligation for vocational qualifications for 16-18s to be in the Qualifications & Credit Framework (QCF) and it offers an entitlement to people who don't complete their education before 19 to have it credited when they are an adult (there is a rather optimistic suggestion that Unique Learner Numbers 'should make this straightforward').

The focus is much more about the whole programme, including valued qualifications and its impact. This includes the recommendation that local employers in the assessment and awarding process.

So, do the recommendations throw doubt on the post 19 funding system which is driven by learning aim codes entirely (from next August) within the QCF? Does it encourage thinking about whole programmes of education and training situated within local circumstances with well recognised qualifications embedded within them? Many have welcomed the recommendations to allow QTLS to be recognised in schools but, within these recommendations there must also be messages for adult learning around the purpose of learning programmes, where they fit in peoples lives, communities and workplaces and that qualifications mean nothing if they're not in a context where they can be applied or lead to progression.

10/12/2010

John Hayes foreword to Skills for Sustainable Growth is very welcome. Learning should be about more than skills alone, should challenge orthodox assumptions and build a big society. I’m glad he says:

“We need to recognise that formal vocational training is not appropriate or needed by everyone. To help create a ‘big society’, we need to empower communities to develop the informal life-long learning opportunities in which they want to participate.”

This is excellent news from the point of view of informal adult education but, of course, the consultation is taking place in the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review and close scrutiny of every government budget. I think it is crucial that anyone interested in adult education looks at the consultation and responds to it quickly.

The consultation talks about ‘local leadership’ - a broad guiding coalition engaging local authorities, employers, colleges and universities, civil society organisations and others. This should pool resources and avoid duplication. We need to emphasise that the voice and influence of organisations working below the level of these agencies – particularly in the voluntary and community sector – must be able to influence this local leadership.

Because of this notion of ‘minimum contract size’ is crucial; any system needs to be accessible for voluntary and community organisations whose defining strength is often being small scale, local and innovative. This is part of the funding simplification proposals but we need to be sure that the big don’t squeeze out the small in any arrangement and that new providers can enter the system fairly and without excessive risk. The voluntary sector must be able to secure funding in an equitable way. I think we need to make sure that comes across in the consultation as it would help the minister’s vision.

Equally, the welcome simplifications to contract could leave part-time adult learning vulnerable to loss of funding or subject to inappropriate requirements needed for formal vocational training. It is clear that this isn’t the intention but we need responses to reinforce the need to maintain a separate funding stream for informal lifelong learning as a small but really vital part of the FE budget and to use it to empower communities and help disadvantaged adults.

Most of all, in times of austerity, we need a funding and policy framework that sustains adult learning, especially in the most disadvantaged communities. I hope many people will consider these issues and respond to the consultation to support John Hayes clear commitment to this work.

01/11/2010

Professor Alison Wolf has continued her critique of government policy around the funding of FE with a new monograph 'An Adult Approach to Further Education'. You can see a short talk on this from her here and also download or buy the monograph.

The summary of the publication says:

'In the UK, further education is a bastion of Soviet
central planning that has wholly avoided the market-based reforms that
have been adopted in other parts of the state sector. In terms of total
spending, further education is important, but hitherto - perhaps
because of its complexity - there has been little serious policy
analysis of the sector.

Professor Alison Wolf is one of the
country's leading education academics. In this study, she explains the
disastrous results of current policy and discusses, lucidly but
rigorously, how reform of the sector should take place.

The
author proposes a new model for funding that is 'student centred', and
which can lead to further and adult education once again making a major
contribution to the building of a skilled workforce and educated
citizenry. In developing her conclusions, the author draws on theory
and evidence - including experience of reform in higher education.'

The short film concentrates on her argument for new learning accounts for individuals and this is an issue that is a key part of the Conservatives current consultation document on the future funding of Further Education which proposes a new Further Education Funding Council and a more market approach to meeting demand for provision. The consultation document can be found on the Conservatives Policy pages. The closing date is this Friday.

As we move towards an election the challenge to the complexity of central planning structures and agencies is becoming stronger and from more sources. How much is a issue around reducing public expenditure and how much a sense that policy and funding in post 16 has gone in the wrong direction? The months of genuflection towards Leitch in 2006-07 now seem long gone.